Corrugated Iron over Thatch

[lukekelly]

Hello, I'm a newcomer to your forum hoping for advice on a series of possibly silly questions. My partner and I are looking admiringly at a Grade II listed property (included for group value) whose roof is corrugated iron over thatch, with the corrugated iron in somewhat dubious condition. In the, presumably inevitable in the fullness of time, situation that the roof needs substantial repairs what would the likely attitude of planning people be? Would they want it replaced like-for-like, that is, a new thatch roof and then corrugated iron over the top? Which seems absurd, but I guess possible. Or as it is included for group value would they be happy with any reasonable replacement such as tiles in keeping with those in the rest of the village. Asking you to pre-judge attitudes of planners to a property you don't know, and indeed that I don't know that well, is of course silly, but the unknown combination of a strange roofing arrangement and listed property planning difficulties is causing all kinds of confusion inside my mind so I thought I'd ask for any assistance that could be provided. In particular, do any sources of information on this type of roofing exist? It's mentioned in passing in the Period Property UK article on thatch but I have been unable to find anything contains information about durability, repairs, insulation and so on.

 

[Feltwell]

Others more knowledgeable than I will no doubt likely put further comments up, but if you've got corrugated iron over thatch then that was almost certainly done as the thatch needed replacing and the owner couldn't / wouldn't find the money to re-thatch properly. If the corrugated iron is in dubious condition then chances are that was done many years ago before it was listed.

But - there's no guarantee of that - if it was done after it was listed then the new owner would be liable for putting it back as it was if no consent was granted - and the chances of gaining consent for a modification like that are, ermm, remote.....

So if we presume it was like that when it was listed then technically you'd need to replace like with like, however in reality the Conservation Officer is likely to react favourably to a re-instatement of the original thatch. But if you bought the house you would need to speak to the CO, apply for and gain the necessary consents before doing anything.

As you're a prospective buyer then a chat with the CO now could be useful to find what you are likely to be able to do. This will help you judge how much the necessary works are likely to be - you're looking at an expensive job whichever way you go, the question is how expensive.

Have you found the house on the Images of England website, if indeed it is in England?

http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/

 

[lukekelly]

Cheers for the advice. This is the property. The corrugated iron predates the listing of the building.

 

[CHRIS]

In some parts of the country CGI roofs are very common and come under the close eye of a local CO, I really like it and here is a link to a good site http://www.corrugated-iron-club.info/

You can construct a good quality roof using modern insulation and galvanised CGI - go for it.

An old topic

http://periodproperty.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7643&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=corrugated+iron

 

[dragonfly]

Interestingly, in Cambridgeshire, one of the few things you can get a grant for is to return a corrugated roof back to its original thatch. But don't ask me how much or how - our house isn't thatched, just noticed it in my general trawl of relevant websites last year!

 

[Flyfisher]

I'd never heard of corrugated iron over thatch before, but I like to learn something new every day so thanks for posting the question.

I know nothing about the heritage merits or otherwise of corrugated iron over thatched roofs but as the property was listed after the corrugated iron was added then I believe it will require LBC to have it removed.

I would strongly recommend anyone thinking of buying a listed property to meet with the relevant CO before making the final decision to purchase and. This is especially important if the property needs any significant work or you wish to make any significant changes to meet your needs. It's less important if the property is already in perfect condition and you don't wish to alter anything about it.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Corrugated iron is a perfectly reasonable and honest material - and one that's getting rarer because, as Dragonfly says, there's (still) a view that thatch is "nicer".
You need to talk to your own CO (and to be honest I wouldn't set much store by the "listed for group value" bit, as research and understanding of vernacular buildings has come on quite a bit since the listing resurvey in the 80s so it's entirely possible that your house now might be considered to be more "worthy" than it was when it was listed), but my own feeling is that at least some corru over thatch ought to be retained or reinstated as a record that that was how the problem of ropey thatch was dealt with for 100+ years - besides which, your surviving thatch underneath the iron is likely to give a good sample of what was being grown in the area a century or more ago - a record that is unlikely to survive elsewhere so even if you do end up wanting to replace it, what's there at the moment should at least be recorded.

 

[Jon Maine]

I agree with keeping the CI sheet. marvelous and cheap too. If you can replace the existing and leave the thatch as that will insulate you well.

 

[MdB]

Just to disagree with everyone else, I really am not a fan of corrugated iron. Thatch would look so much better in my opinion (which doesn't count for anything). However, I guess looks are not high on the CO's list of priorities and I can understand that corrugated iron has historical importance.

Roofing material generally has a limited life and needs to be replaced and it appears that from the history of your place, the roof was thatched when money allowed and covered with corrugated iron when money did not. I would have thought is sensible to keep this policy and possibly have it written into the listed building consent.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Just to disagree with everyone else, I really am not a fan of corrugated iron. Thatch would look so much better in my opinion (which doesn't count for anything). However, I guess looks are not high on the CO's list of priorities and I can understand that corrugated iron has historical importance.

Roofing material generally has a limited life and needs to be replaced and it appears that from the history of your place, the roof was thatched when money allowed and covered with corrugated iron when money did not. I would have thought is sensible to keep this policy and possibly have it written into the listed building consent.

The logical extension of that argument, of course, is that the roof would have been replaced with slates or tiles if they were more cheaply available than thatch, and then by concrete tiles when they became the "norm".
And the windows would be replaced with aluminium double glazed units in the 70s, and then with PVCu.

 

[MdB]

The logical extension of that argument, of course, is that the roof would have been replaced with slates or tiles if they were more cheaply available than thatch, and then by concrete tiles when they became the "norm".
And the windows would be replaced with aluminium double glazed units in the 70s, and then with PVCu.

Which would and has happened in many places unfortunately which is why a roof that has escaped this should be preserved. I still don't like the look of CI though....

 

[andrew gayton]

Corrugated iron is a perfectly reasonable and honest material - and one that's getting rarer because, as Dragonfly says, there's (still) a view that thatch is "nicer".
You need to talk to your own CO (and to be honest I wouldn't set much store by the "listed for group value" bit, as research and understanding of vernacular buildings has come on quite a bit since the listing resurvey in the 80s so it's entirely possible that your house now might be considered to be more "worthy" than it was when it was listed), but my own feeling is that at least some corru over thatch ought to be retained or reinstated as a record that that was how the problem of ropey thatch was dealt with for 100+ years - besides which, your surviving thatch underneath the iron is likely to give a good sample of what was being grown in the area a century or more ago - a record that is unlikely to survive elsewhere so even if you do end up wanting to replace it, what's there at the moment should at least be recorded.

x2 - tin is fantastic........... I have even used it to extend my house.

 

[Feltwell]

Corrugated iron does cetainly seem to have the "marmite" effect - you love it or hate it. Personally, I fall into the latter group.

What do you view as a legitimate part of the building's evolution? That thatch was replaced with CI years ago and should stay like that? That a wooden window was replaced with aluminium in the 70's and should stay like that? No rights or wrongs I guess, only opinions, and ultimately you'll be dictated to by a combination of finances (i.e. if you can't afford to replace the thatch so the only way to go is new CI) or the CO (i.e. if you're not allowed to re-instate the thatch).

Lovely building though, I can see why you've fallen in love with it!

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Corrugated iron does cetainly seem to have the "marmite" effect - you love it or hate it. Personally, I fall into the latter group.

What do you view as a legitimate part of the building's evolution? That thatch was replaced with CI years ago and should stay like that? That a wooden window was replaced with aluminium in the 70's and should stay like that?

Though mindful that we tend to prefer the (apparently) handcrafted over the machine-made (unless it's a car, or a kitchen), I'm coming to the conclusion that the issue of what is or isn't worth keeping as part of a building's evolution is, rather like the issue of what buildings as a whole are worth keeping, something that works as a sort of sliding "time-barrier" anywhere between about 20 and 150 years before the present.
Once something has been generally admitted to be worth keeping (Victorian Railway stations, say) they don't then go back out of conservation "fashion" - the consensus to preserve doesn't dilute. But it takes pioneers to admire these things 20-30 years before general opinion agrees. We're currently seeing it with the Brutalist buildings of the early 1970s (There are serious conservationists pointing out that some of them are of sufficient significance and merit to be worth keeping - now that we've lost some of the most important examples) while public opionion is slightly less keen but is being softened up by a nostalgia for the seventies as exemplified by "Life on Mars".
Where corrugated iron fits into this pattern is that we are here, having a discussion about whether it should be retained or not, whereas 15 years ago we would probably all have agreed it should go.
Next stop, historic PVCu. Not new PVCu replacing historic material, but the earliest surviving examples of PVCu windows - there's a difference you see?

 

[andrew gayton]

ummmmmm; even 15 years ago I would have been on the side of retain the tin. Aside from being a truly 'vernacular' material, it is a very good socio-economic indicator. Inter and post war periods saw the material used in domestic dwelling houses whereas previously - aside from bolton + paul tabernacle etc etc - it was used predominantly for agricultural purposes. In my opinion, far too many tin-over-thatch roofs have been lost to 20th c 'gentrification'.

Can't see anyone saying that about plastic.

saying that, i did see a tumbledown clay lump house with PLASTIC thatch once (in 6' x 2' sheets)

 

[dragonfly]

As a slight digression, I have some horrible rotting window frames which, as they were fitted in the eighties are in no way original, or to what the original style would have been. However when our CO had a look at them we were told that repair was preferable to replacement. Is this typical as I would really like to replace them with something as close to the originals as possible, using something other than cheapo softwood, badly painted (which is what they are now.)? If anyone has had a similar experience it would be great to know what the eventual solution was. I can't tell from our documentation whether it was done before or after listing which, from the discussions on this topic string, may well have a bearing.

 

[andrew gayton]

photograph please.

 

[Pford75]

I'm not going to venture an opinion on the iron vs thatch debate.

What I will say, is that buildings are often listed for either historical importance or architectural importance or both. It seems that some people place more importance on maintaining the history of a building (warts and all) and others prefer to have something in a consistent architectural style. Hence, some would regard a 1930's fireplace in a Georgian rectory as an interesting chapter in the building's history and others would regard it as out of place.

I sympathise with the lot of our resident CO's....because people will always have different opinions on this.

It very much depends on the building, but my personal inclination is always towards something architectural/aesthetically pleasing vs. something 'honest'. I use the inverted commas because 'honest' is often used as a substitute for 'ugly' or 'bodged' IMO. I hear the argument for historical records of changes....but this argument could also be used as a rationale for retaining 80's uPVC in period buildings.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

I'm not going to venture an opinion on the iron vs thatch debate.

What I will say, is that buildings are often listed for either historical importance or architectural importance or both. It seems that some people place more importance on maintaining the history of a building (warts and all) and others prefer to have something in a consistent architectural style. Hence, some would regard a 1930's fireplace in a Georgian rectory as an interesting chapter in the building's history and others would regard it as out of place.

I sympathise with the lot of our resident CO's....because people will always have different opinions on this.

It very much depends on the building, but my personal inclination is always towards something architectural/aesthetically pleasing vs. something 'honest'. I use the inverted commas because 'honest' is often used as a substitute for 'ugly' or 'bodged' IMO. I hear the argument for historical records of changes....but this argument could also be used as a rationale for retaining 80's uPVC in period buildings.

But then you also get materials that are both "honest" and (in the opinion of, it seems at present, a well-informed and sizeable minority) pleasing - like corrugated iron in many (though not all) cases. I'd say corru is a genuine vernacular material with a sufficiently long history to belong to a real tradition and to be appropriate, bith historically and visually, on "lower end" buildings. But probably not on the roof of Blenheim Palace.